Public consultation on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF)

ClientEarth argues that the next EU long-term budget (MFF) must move beyond inconsistent environmental safeguards to implement binding spending targets and strict conditionalities. The organization calls for the legal enshrining of the 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) principle, the creation of a dedicated Nature Restoration Fund and an EU Ocean Fund, and the redirection of harmful subsidies in agriculture and fisheries toward low-impact, small-scale actors and energy communities.

• The 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) principle has been implemented inconsistently and has not always succeeded in blocking harmful investments. ClientEarth recommends that the DNSH principle be "legally enshrined in the next MFF Regulation" and applied across all sectors, including energy, fisheries, and agriculture, supported by a horizontal guidance and a common exclusion list of activities that breach EU environmental law.
• Current biodiversity spending is often overestimated due to a lack of specific requirements for what constitutes such investment, resulting in less than 1% of spending actually being directed toward biodiversity-related measures. The next MFF should establish "dedicated, concrete and mandatory climate and biodiversity spending targets" linked to quantified, binding objectives.
• To implement the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRL), ClientEarth proposes the creation of a separate "EU Nature Restoration Fund" to finance concrete restoration measures, administrative needs, and monitoring. This is supported by the claim that nature restoration can provide returns between "8 and 38 euros per 1 euro spent".
• The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) currently incentivizes industrial farming, with an estimated "€31.4 billion to €32.1 billion annually" of funding considered detrimental to biodiversity. ClientEarth argues for phasing out untargeted area-based income support in favor of targeted support for agroecology, high animal welfare, and small-scale farmers.
• EU fisheries funding is currently inefficient, with 5% to 12% of EMFAF funding going to biodiversity-harming subsidies—more than double the amount for restoration. ClientEarth recommends replacing the sectoral EMFAF structure with a new "EU Ocean Fund" and prioritizing small-scale coastal fisheries, which previously received only about 20% of funding despite making up 75% of the EU fleet.
• Energy communities face systemic barriers and limited financing. The next MFF should mandate full transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) and the Internal Electricity Market Directive (IEMD) as a prerequisite for funding, while providing simplified application procedures and dedicated financial instruments for these communities.

APA

ClientEarth (2025). Public consultation on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF). https://www.clientearth.org/media/loueshge/clientearths-reply-to-mff-public-consultation-general-briefing-1.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Public consultation on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF). 2025. https://www.clientearth.org/media/loueshge/clientearths-reply-to-mff-public-consultation-general-briefing-1.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=Public consultation on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF) |date=May 2025 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/loueshge/clientearths-reply-to-mff-public-consultation-general-briefing-1.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2025public, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Public consultation on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF)}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2025}, month = may, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/loueshge/clientearths-reply-to-mff-public-consultation-general-briefing-1.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }